Do not build or sell game cheats or assists, including AI tools that only read the screen
In China, providing relevant hacking tools on 20 person-occasions or earning RMB 5,000 can meet the serious-offense threshold, carrying up to 3 years; particularly serious cases carry 3–7 years. A wallhack/aimbot seller with over RMB 80,000 in three-month sales received one year suspended for one year and a RMB 5,000 fine. A private-server case involving over RMB 20 million in top-ups produced sentences up to 4 years and fines up to RMB 10 million.
What it takes
No outlay, but you give up income from these contracts and tools. Easy money and an apparently distant risk make that difficult.
What you may gain
Providing programs or tools specifically for intrusion or illegal control of computer systems carries up to 3 years and/or a fine when serious, or 3–7 years plus a fine when particularly serious. Serious cases include provision on at least 20 person-occasions or illegal proceeds of at least RMB 5,000. Deliberately bypassing or defeating a rights holder's technical protection can also constitute copyright infringement: up to 3 years, or 3–10 years in serious cases. Official cases: Wang and others sold cheats that read and modified game memory for wallhacks and automatic aiming, with over RMB 80,000 sales and RMB 30,000 profits in 3 months; the sentence was one year suspended for one year, plus RMB 5,000. A suspended sentence means imprisonment is not immediately served and may not be served if suspension conditions are met. Xiang and others sold over RMB 200,000 of “TZ” cheats; Xiang received 3 years suspended for 3 years and RMB 20,000. Liu and others obtained server software, changed parameters and ran private servers taking over RMB 20 million in top-ups; sentences ranged from 2 years 6 months to 4 years, with fines from RMB 1.3 million to RMB 10 million. These are Chinese cases.
Context & considerations
Published cheat cases involve memory access and bypassing anti-cheat measures. No official case was found involving tools that only capture the screen and simulate keystrokes. However, the ticketing case shows that requests without memory modification can still lead to an illegal-data-acquisition conviction. Whether conduct is criminal and which offense applies depends on the authorities' assessment of the evidence, including the vendor's submission, not the author's declaration. Twenty person-occasions is a small threshold.
Research & references
National People's Congress of China (2020). Criminal Law incorporating Amendment XI, Articles 285(3) and 217(6). https://jtgl.beijing.gov.cn/jgj/jgxx/flfg/fl/11033925/index.html; Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate (2011). Interpretation on Criminal Cases Endangering Computer Information System Security, Article 3. https://ga.sz.gov.cn/ZWGK/ZCFG/ZCJD/content/post_1304363.html (Shenzhen Public Security Bureau reprint); Supreme People's Procuratorate (2026). Shanghai Jing'an: Punishing the Production and Sale of Game Cheats. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202608/t20260825_735480.shtml; Supreme People's Procuratorate (2021). Typical Procuratorial Intellectual Property Protection Cases for 2020, case 5. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/xwfbh/wsfbt/202104/t20210425_516525.shtml